I'm adding a 2nd PATA drive (I will actually be using it as my Primary drive once it's up and running) and wondered if there's much of a noticeable difference in performance between 2 and 8MB cache PATA drives. I like Seagate drives but to get an 8MB cache I have to go to a 120GB model (for $30 more), which is more storage than I really need. The other option would be to get a WD, which makes an 80GB, 8MB cache model.
Would that include editing/opening photo files? I don't plan on doing any video editing, just perhaps viewing a video clip here and there but nothing heavy. Most of the work will be email, light business apps. and photo editing/viewing/storage.
What baracuda was refering to was actually watching a large video clip stored on the hard drive. If you wanted to watch a 700MB divx file or listen to a high bitrate MP3, it would take a little longer to load and a little longer to seek thru it.
If we're talking stuff smaller than say 5MB, you're not going to see a difference.
Is Seagate a much more reliable drive than WD? I was reading some reviews at Cnet and here at Tom's seem to think the Seagate's performance is a bit slow. However, I have also read that Seagates are more reliable on average. Is there much difference compared to WD?
Back in the day Seagates were the most reliable. This was when WD and Maxtor were the only other two games in town. IBM was a joke in the late 90's. Anyways, drives are all the same these days as far as reliability is concerned. I would be more concerned w/ warranty and support.
As wusy said, the number one killer of hard drives is heat. (some say it's spindle speed, but this absolutely not true). So a well ventilated system will ensure a longer lifetime on your drives.